Design game elements for their intended use. Secondary uses are nice, but not a goal. Basically, when we build a monster we intend you to use it as a monster. If we build a feat, it's meant as a feat, not a monster special attack. If we also want to make it a playable character race, we'll design a separate racial write up for it. We won't try to shoehorn a monster stat block into becoming a PC stat block. The designs must inform each other, but we're better off building two separate game elements rather than one that tries to multiclass.

As an example, the a theoretical minotaur PC race write up draws on and evokes the feel of the minotaur monster, but it doesn't simply copy over the rules.

MM1 will have 288 pages and over 300 monsters (well over by my count; it's what I'm working on now). We have page space allocated for racial info for some monsters. You'll have to wait and see how we packed the book full of so much goodness, but I can give you a hint: 4e is easier to run. And that doesn't mean monsters have all their cool stripped away—it just means they're easy to run.

What Mike said is still accurate. A gnome "monster" does some stuff like a PC/NPC might, but it's a monster built to be run by the DM, not character meant to be run by a player. On the flip, a gnome race is for PCs, and it would have just enough influence on the "monster" gnome for the players to know they're facing a gnome.

Can you answer a question then? Over on the Monster thread, people were worried that monsters will be difficult to advance, or that giving them class levels may be more difficult; you may not include things like HD. So, will 4e monsters still be capable of taking class levels or be advanced without too much work on the DM's part?

That depends on what's meant by "more difficult." It will certainly be different, and it will certainly require some learning for those used to 3e. One aspect of the question also assumes monsters need certain aspects they have in 3e to be functional or for someone to advance them. This sort of thinking isn't helpful, because it tries to speculate about a system using something the system is not (4e is not 3e).

If a monster is presented as a monster and a race, like say the goblin is in 3e (and probably will be in 4e), how hard is it to advance it with a character class if you want an NPC? Not very. Is it better if you have to do that sort of preparation work less often? As a busy career guy, a husband, a gamer, and more, I'd have to say that's valuable for me.

I have to apologize a little. It's hard to answer this question completely without getting into a lot of detail I unfortunately can't get into yet, and I know that sounds lame right now. But I don't think anyone needs to be worried. More info will be forthcoming in the form of previews and more interaction from R&D on these boards.

"I'm a simple man, Hobbes." "You?? Yesterday you wanted a nuclear powered car that could turn into a jet with laser-guided heat-seeking missiles!" "I'm a simple man with complex tastes."

1. The divide between monsters and PCs isn't as big as everyone thinks. Monsters have the same ability scores as they do in 3e, skills, any feats that are appropriate, and so on. This won't be 2e or 1e.

2. Though monsters don't necessarily use spell-like abilities, monster abilities remain within the same basic realm of utility. A sixty foot cone of fire works just like any other sixty foot cone. The staggering majority of abilities are pretty much spell-like in mechanics, it's just that those mechanics appear in the stat block rather than refer to a spell.

3. Many monster abilities are re-used and templated. On top of that, monster abilities are kept simple and easy to use, as we know that a DM has to handle several monsters at once. Really complex monsters are a special case.

4. The new system allows for more flavorful monsters and a greater sense of mystery and wonder. Your players will know a lot less about specific monster abilities unless they read the MM and pay a lot of attention. Fighting gnolls is going to feel a lot different compared to fighting hobgoblins. Fighting a new creature is going to be scary. I loved springing new critters on people in my playtests.

5. I really can't wait until we do in-depth previews of the MM. The playtest DMs were pretty happy with how monsters work now. I'm curious to see how gamers in general will react. In my blog, I talked about how playing 4e felt like playing D&D for the first time again. The monsters played a big role in that.

6. There's a forum set up specifically for commenting on the blogs over on the WotC boards:

That's a good place to directly address stuff we post. Anywhere else is a bit hit or miss, depending on work schedules and stuff. We're trying to hit the WotC boards, here, and elsewhere, but there's a ton of talk and it's hard to keep up.

mais:

In 4e you can make up monster NPCs with class levels, feats, modified skills, magic items, and everything you can do in 3e to your heart's content. We wouldn't dream of taking that away from you - it's too much fun.

PCs are a slightly different story. We'd rather create a specific PC write up for a monster that reins in any potential issues at the table or for game balance.

parece não ser tão ruim como se enxergava antes:

Nope. In all the situations you cite, the ogre would be an ogre.

The only case where the ogre might not get a theoretical Awesome Blow ability is if, for some reason, it caused problems in the hand of a PC. However, that is much more likely to be the case for beholders, mind flayers, and other critters with really weird, powerful abilities that would be big problems if used every round throughout an adventure.

I think this discussion points out the flaw in 3e's handling of monsters as PCs. LA works fine for *some* monsters, particularly those like giants, ogres, and minotaurs, who don't have any outlandish abilities. It breaks down for really magical, weird critters.

I think the ogre is a bad example, because he's on the very simple scale for monsters. He's basically a big, dumb fighter, and I imagine that a PC write up for him would be close to, if not precisely, just taking his stat block and playing as a level X character.

However, take the troglodyte as a counter example. Let's say I create a level 1 troglodyte fighter, the equivalent of a level 6 character. He probably has around 30 hit points, not great for a fighter at that level, but not too awful. His attack bonus is 4 points behind the equivalent human fighter. That's not so good, a 20% lower chance to hit on average.

In return, the trog has an AC of about 30 or so if he carries a shield. That's before any buffs. Thanks to the wonders of a +6 natural AC bonus, he is 30% less likely to be hit than the equivalent human fighter.

So, the trog gains +6 AC for -4 on attacks and 12 to 15 hit points.

Is that an even balance? Who knows. It might be. It probably isn't. But the key is, there's no design here. It's just numbers chosen to make a good CR 1 monster clumsily converted into a character.

In the future, we'd rather *design* this stuff to do what it does, so that when you play a trog you have a fun, interesting, reasonably balanced character.

The monster trog works fine as an NPC. He can join the party, follow you as an ally, gain character levels if the DM wants a trog wizard or fighter, and so on. The key is that, to form a fun play experience over session after session, that trog doesn't work. You need a different tool.

Some monsters are much closer to being playable. Others are farther away. We'd rather create mechanics to deal with each situation, rather than try to manufacture a one size fits all solution when it's plain that monsters need wildly different changes from case to case to become usable PCs.

"I'm a simple man, Hobbes." "You?? Yesterday you wanted a nuclear powered car that could turn into a jet with laser-guided heat-seeking missiles!" "I'm a simple man with complex tastes."